Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (33824)	11/4/2000 4:36:37 PM
From: flatsville	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 436258

Coby-- I think you know the answer to federal adminstration of many of the programs you cited are national goals, uniformity of application and fairness. As you may know under Clinton there has been a massive reform of welfare law. Beginning in 1996 families formerly covered by AFDC were moved to TANF. Individual states were given great latitude in how they administered the new, more restrictive welfare program as they moved families from welfare to work. Some states chose to welch on the required commitment to provide continued medical care and food stamps assistance to poor children as their parents moved into the work force at low paying jobs that had no medical insurance. Your candidate Gov. Bush was one of the bigger welchers. Not long ago a federal court had to force Bush to cover poor children under an emergency order. His excuse for not covering the children as required by federal law was that the Texas legislature did not meet on a schedule that would have allowed timely implementation. The court didn't swallow it and neither did I. As Governor and an executive he could have called an emergency session to pass the necessary legislation. I can only assume the suffering of poor children isn't an emergency in his book. Poor kids don't vote after all. How compassionately conservative of him. "The 1996 welfare reform bill passed by Congress ended the traditional connection between welfare benefits and Medicaid. The Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was created to provide funding to states to cover the cost of insuring poor children no longer receiving Medicaid. A report released today by the Families USA Foundation shows that fewer children in several states are covered now by both CHIP and Medicaid combined than were covered by Medicaid alone in 1996. Since 1996, 193,400 of Texas' poorest kids no longer receive the health coverage they are eligible for -- a decline of 14.2 percent. Among the states studied by Families USA, Texas has the highest number and percentage of poor kids eligible for Medicaid and CHIP who are uninsured." BUSH SAYS HE WANTS TO HELP DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN – BUT HE'S FOUGHT AGAINST EFFORTS TO EXPAND CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE Bush RHETORIC: Bush Claimed, "We Spend a Lot of Money on Disadvantage Children, Which I Support." BUSH REALITY: Bush Fought Spending Extra Money on Disadvantaged Kids. Bush Fought Efforts to Expand Children's Health Insurance. Even though Texas ranks second worst in the nation in the percentage of uninsured children (24 percent) and the number of kids lacking health insurance (1.4 million), Bush fought efforts to expand coverage to more children. In fact, Bush's initial 1999 budget proposal for the Children's Health Insurance Program would have denied coverage to 220,000 kids covered under the Democratic plan. CHIP provides health insurance for children in families that don't qualify for Medicaid and can't afford private insurance. [Austin American-Statesman, 2/26/99; Dallas Morning News, 12/2/98] Texas Ranked Second in Children Living in Poverty. Texas ranked second in the nation in number of children living in poverty, with more than 1.5 million children in poverty, according to a 1999 report by Texas District Judge Scott McCown, who studied children's welfare in Texas. [Houston Chronicle, 1/31/99] Report Shows Texas Ranks 2nd Worst in Hunger. According to 1999 U.S. Department of Agriculture reports, approximately one million Texans go hungry each day while 2.5 million households are barely able to feed their families. Only one other state had a higher percentage of households that go hungry. In all, 12.9 percent of Texas households are considered "food insecure" – either hungry or threatened with hunger. While the number of families facing hunger in Texas remains high, the number of families receiving food stamps has dropped dramatically. [San Antonio Express-News, 10/15/99; Associated Press, 11/14/99] >>>Further, we'd pay the members of the Armed Forces a living wage, so they don't have to rely on food stamps in order to eat. That's a national disgrace.<<< I agree completely. Would you happen to know when this state of affair began and escalated? You might be surprised. Or why Congress thinks it has the right to tell states what BAC level is acceptable in DUI laws. States don't have to accept the federal BAC. They can fogo the federal highway dollars. No doubt your state also has congressmen and senators who can take this up

To: Ilaine who wrote (33824)	11/4/2000 7:20:38 PM
From: marginmike	Respond to of 436258

CB Again I couldnt agree more. There was a great segement on 20/20 recently that interviewed poor people on a food line. Suprisingly they all lived in Govt housing, had cable TV, and air conditioning. They are living better unemployed then most midle class folks live in third world countries. Yet are millitary is cut to the bone, taxes are raised, and people talk about how the rich shouldnt get any breaks. I pay 50% of my income to taxes, not included Sales, or property taxes. Its nuts, what Am I getting for my money? NOTHING, I have to pay 20G's to send my kid to a decent school. Meanwhille the Public school system has 4-5 times more administrators per student as the parochial or private system. Government does one thing well, waste money. Like ross perot said about GM, when there is a snake on the factory floor GM(government) creates a study, then a comittee and then another commision. when all is done they all conclude the snakes not bothering anyone. Instead of someone just killing the damn snake.